Humanity is no stranger to calamity and catastrophe--war, environmental factors, nuclear weapons, disease, biological warfare etc. People oftentimes like to debate which of these evils poses the greatest threat to humankind, and that is precisely what I am asking. What do YOU believe is humanities' greatest threat? What is most likely to wipe us all out? Oh, and please no abstract, armchair-philosopher answers like 'fear itself' or 'stupidity' etc. We already know that pretty much all of these things are rooted in human stupidity, so avoid the tautalogical nonsense and answer directly what you believe is the greatest threat to humanity.

Contrary to mainstream belief--that nuclear war is the greatest threat to humanity--I believe that humanities' greatest threat is actually still disease. I honestly think that nuclear war does not even hold a candle to the danger that plague/disease from either mother nature and/or biological warfare presents us with. Disease is the one danger that we cannot fight through conventional means. Nuclear warfare can be prevented if everyone is careful and dismantles their nukes, and if it does start, it can always end if the people of the world truly decided to stop it. All you have to do is refrain from pressing a button again and boom, nuclear war is over. Nuclear war is entirely possible to stop.

But on the other hand, disease/plague is not like this. You cannot prevent disease/plague because viruses are constantly evolving. It's an evolutionary arms race. And if we biologically engineer a horrible plague, then we are really screwed because even in the slim chance that we are able to develop a cure (which is unlikely since we cannot even cure the common flu), who is to say that the virus will not evolve again and develop immunity to the cure? You cannot kill a plague, you cannot shoot it or prevent it from happening. This is why it is our greatest threat. As I said above, at least nuclear war can be prevented and if it does start, can possible be ended. It is entirely dependent upon whether we decide to push the ignition button or not. But not plague. Plague knows no boundries or rules. It is our biggest threat.

Combine this with the fact that the world is so much more interconnected today than it was in the past, and you have a recipe for disaster. We have urban cities, subway and bus systems, airports where you can travel from nation to nation within a single day. We are just asking for a problem. I think that disease/plague is ultimately our greatest threat.

I am forced into speech because men of science have refused to follow my advice without knowing why. It is altogether against my will that I tell my reasons for opposing this contemplated invasion of the antarctic - with its vast fossil hunt and its wholesale boring and melting of the ancient ice caps. And I am the more reluctant because my warning may be in vain.

In the end I must rely on the judgment and standing of the few scientific leaders who have, on the one hand, sufficient independence of thought to weigh my data on its own hideously convincing merits or in the light of certain primordial and highly baffling myth cycles; and on the other hand, sufficient influence to deter the exploring world in general from any rash and over-ambitious program in the region of those mountains of madness. It is an unfortunate fact that relatively obscure men like myself and my associates, connected only with a small university, have little chance of making an impression where matters of a wildly bizarre or highly controversial nature are concerned.

« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 04:42:26 PM by Iconodule »

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Greetings in that Divine and Most Precious Name of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ!

"..In a few moments of madness.."

This is one of my favorite crust/anarco albums of all time. It is a 7 inch vinyl only EP, but it is monumental record. Akin to Peter Tosh's No Nuclear War.

Disease is of course a tragic reality of the human experience, however, it is not our greatest threat. Disease is part of a balance, a natural harmony. Disease does not cause extinction level events, just population control. Human beings are intelligent enough to counter disease in sake of population gain. However, through nuclear war, we can not only destroy ourselves, but the natural balance of several mutual ecosystems on the planet. We can induce an extinction level event beyond our species, and at the push of several buttons. Is it a long shot? Of course. Do we honestly feel that nuclear holocaust is inevitable? Hardly, however, clearly SOME folks in the world are taking it serious enough to have over 2500 armed and available nuclear warheads at any given moment

That beings said, while it seems unreasonable, impossible even, in just a few moments of madness, we can make mistakes which destroy us all. The moral lesson from Adam and Eve or the example of King David is that human beings make such mistakes. Nuclear weapons give us the technology so that a single human mistake can cost all of our lives.

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 05:09:26 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Nuclear war is not that big of a threat since nuclear weapons typically bring peace through mutually assured destruction. Finding a way to make nukes easier to use without any fallout (heh) would be disastrous at best.

Diseases really aren't that terrifying. Viruses and bacteria may evolve but so do people. The idea that a single virus could wipe out mankind entirely is somewhat ridiculous. I think that a monstrously large epidemic could easily wipe out civilization but not homo sapiens at large. A number of people would have or develop immunities and they would do what people do naturally - be fruitful and multiply.

I think the greatest political threat would be if Islam just went totally bonkers and jihaded everyone at once. Since Islam isn't a state it doesn't have the same restrictions as a state would. Religions, just like ideologies, are organic and can operate across a wide spectrum. Islam just has that perfect mix of universalism, condoned violence, and a central location between several major civilizational centers. I don't think the Sinification of world politics will really be disastrous, I just think it will be a slow development over the next century that people will grow used to. Or their growth spurt will end and they will slide back into anonymity. We'll see. The eventual collapse/evolution of the United States might provoke some violence but probably not enough to be really devastating. I just think our economy will normalize to the standard for this hemisphere while our language and culture atrophy until the point that Latin culture fills the vacuum.

Other than that, there's always the possibility that Barrack Hussein Obama is in fact a space alien and uses the next four years to await his Alpha Centaurian reinforcements.

Islam? I admit, Islam is a parasitic religion that is infecting the entire world, but I do not think that it is capable of completely destroying humanity if all of its adherents went bonkers and declared jihad. Hell, the Roman Catholic Church has like 2 billion adherents worldwide. If Islam went bonkers, then all the Pope has to do is call for a universal crusade and we would have 2 billion people from all over the world ready to exterminate Islam. Then our threat would be Latinization lol.

Islam? I admit, Islam is a parasitic religion that is infecting the entire world, but I do not think that it is capable of completely destroying humanity if all of its adherents went bonkers and declared jihad. Hell, the Roman Catholic Church has like 2 billion adherents worldwide. If Islam went bonkers, then all the Pope has to do is call for a universal crusade and we would have 2 billion people from all over the world ready to exterminate Islam. Then our threat would be Latinization lol.

A post-Vatican II crusade would probably involve dancing and puppets.

Logged

Quote

But it had not been in Tess's power - nor is it in anybody's power - to feel the whole truth of golden opinions while it is possible to profit by them. She - and how many more - might have ironically said to God with Saint Augustine, "Thou hast counselled a better course than thou hast permitted."

Nuclear war is not that big of a threat since nuclear weapons typically bring peace through mutually assured destruction. Finding a way to make nukes easier to use without any fallout (heh) would be disastrous at best.

That is a philosophy that has worked but just barely. Today, while the rhetoric has toned down, a nuclear holocaust is as potent and real a threat as it ever was in anytime in our history.

Quote

Diseases really aren't that terrifying. Viruses and bacteria may evolve but so do people. The idea that a single virus could wipe out mankind entirely is somewhat ridiculous. I think that a monstrously large epidemic could easily wipe out civilization but not homo sapiens at large. A number of people would have or develop immunities and they would do what people do naturally - be fruitful and multiply.

Been to a tropical country before? Disease is indeed the largest killer of humans today, but it isn't vindictive or personal, just tragic. Diseases cause atrocious human suffering at every level, how exactly is that NOT terrifying? Every 15 seconds a child dies from water borne diseases. Every 15 minutes a person dies from AIDS. 1 MILLION people a year die from malaria. Staggering but not a holocaust, the only reason I put nuclear war above diseases on human threat list is because diseases are again part of a natural balance, whereas nuclear war is a human creation, and we all know human beings make terrible decisions

Quote

I think the greatest political threat would be if Islam just went totally bonkers and jihaded everyone at once. Since Islam isn't a state it doesn't have the same restrictions as a state would.

Somehow I'm not surprised

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 05:24:40 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Islam? I admit, Islam is a parasitic religion that is infecting the entire world, but I do not think that it is capable of completely destroying humanity if all of its adherents went bonkers and declared jihad. Hell, the Roman Catholic Church has like 2 billion adherents worldwide. If Islam went bonkers, then all the Pope has to do is call for a universal crusade and we would have 2 billion people from all over the world ready to exterminate Islam. Then our threat would be Latinization lol.

Political disaster. Not something that would destroy civilization, per se, but would alter it beyond current recognition. Think 30 Years War and the Treaty of Westphalia. Europe was a different place after this conflict and due to the changes in Europe the world would soon see major changes as well though Colonialism. I think that Islam is at a point where it could go through another period of rapid expansion, comparable to the initial expansion post-Mohammet, or to that carried out by the Turks before being stopped at Vienna/Lepanto. I think we will be seeing some interesting political developments in the Middle East if Syria is unable to hold on. I think the Moslem Brotherhood could become the next Ottoman Empire.

As Iconodule pointed out, I don't think the Pope or the modern Catholics would be up to the task. I think the possibility of a Western European resurgence is there but in no way a given. This would also test Russia's mettle, though possibly give them an inroads into a hegemony over Eastern Europe. Perhaps African states could be used by China as proxies in this fight - the Chinese are investing heavily in Africa these days and Christianity is growing there while Islam is shrinking. I could not see a global jihad without Africa as a major battleground. It would also be an opportunity for India to become a major world player.

It can do the following that can destroy the either the Earth or the UNIVERSE:

1) Time Travel2) Strange Matter3) Recreating the Big Bang

1) What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Of course, there are plenty of ways in which the universe can screw us for daring to violate that most fundamental of laws, cause and effect. We can't even imagine them until we know the first thing about time travel, which we don't. But some speculate that the very attempt to travel back in time could result in the world exploding, imploding, collapsing, shrinking into a singularity, or simply disappearing. But because I strive to bring you only the weirdest of possibilities, so consider the chronological collapse scenario. In the distant future, when the stars have burned out and the planets have wobbled out of their celestial orbits, the descendents of humanity will be staring extinction in the face, and if they have access to a **** time machine then it's likely they're going to say "screw this" and just return to a more comfortable point in history. A flood of refugees from the future might set up home in the present and flourish, until the world ends again and they decide to do what worked last time. And again. And again. Effectively, the moment we switch on our very first time machine, our universe is going to be home to approximately infinity refugees from the future. You do the math.

According to some Russian scientists, yes. Sure, there are no serious plans in motion to research into building time machines, but who says it has to be deliberate? The discovery of penicillin was a complete accident. The theory is that the LHC might open wormholes with its high-energy collisions that future generations can manipulate for time travelling purposes. Apparently it's possible that those Swiss eggheads will switch on the machine only to find a naked Arnold Schwarzenegger asking for their clothes. You may be thinking, "If we get a time machine, and realize it will destroy the universe, then all we'd have to do is travel back in time and destroy the time machine! Easy!". But then...if we destroyed the time machine, then we wouldn't be able to go back in time... so the machine would remain intact, in which case we could use it to go back and... Look, we don't know. Screw science.

2) What Could Possibly Go Wrong? There are two hypotheses about strange matter. One is that the stuff will simply disappear a fraction of a second after it appears. The other is that it will stabilize and convert every atom it comes in contact with into more strange matter. It could go either way, really. There's a theory that there are entire stars out there in the universe that are made out of strange matter, just because a microscopic fragment of the stuff made contact once and then everything went to hell. Now imagine, just theoretically, if some of this strange matter should appear on Earth. And, just theoretically, it should be stable enough to start a reaction with regular matter. Theoretically, we'd all be dead as hell.

So, Basically It's Like... Imagine you're like the fabled King Midas, and you have the power to convert matter with a single touch. Except that instead of gold, everything you touch turns into crap. And everything it touches turns to crap. Before you know it, the whole world is crap, and it's all your fault.

That's right, our friends at the LHC project expect a lot of weird things to pop up when they start smashing atoms together, and strange matter is one such possibility. That's why scientists have written papers with boring titles such as Will Relativistic Heavy-ion Colliders Destroy Our Planet?, the rebuttals to which were basically, "Let's turn them on and find out!" At this point we're kind of wondering whether there's anything this machine can do that doesn't involve killing you and everyone you care about. Scientists respond to the strange matter problem by saying if it was ever going to happen, it would have happened already (since these kind of reactions happen a zillion times a second in our atmosphere anyway). We like to call this piece of rhetoric the cop-out hypothesis, because they know pretty well that if it turns out they're wrong, there won't be anyone left to sue them.

3) What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Well, first imagine an apocalyptic nuclear holocaust. Multiply that by about one hundred and twenty thousand billion, and then multiply that by around the neighborhood of infinity. That equals around one eighth of the magnitude of the Big Bang. Nevertheless, scientists are pretty sure they can contain their Big Bang in an erlenmeyer flask, just so long as they remember to cork it.

So, Basically It's Like... Imagine you have a huge tanker truck parked outside a children's hospital. You don't know what's inside it, but you're fairly confident that it's either a cure for cancer, or 20,000 gallons of explosive nitroglycerin. To find out which, you have to shoot at it with an AK-47.

The problem, of course, is that even the eggheads don't really know what's going to happen, which is sort of why they're doing it in the first place. That's also why a lawsuit was filed to put a stop to it. Scientists on the LHC project insist there is no danger, and predict that the resulting observations could revolutionize science and send us into a golden age of knowledge, in the event that we actually survive. Experts assure us that based on everything we know about science, the chances of doom are fairly slim. Experts also say LHC will change everything we know about science. So there is a certain chance that one of the brand new things they learn about the LHC is that the LHC has the ability turn the entire planet into a fine cloud of particles.

Nuclear war is not that big of a threat since nuclear weapons typically bring peace through mutually assured destruction. Finding a way to make nukes easier to use without any fallout (heh) would be disastrous at best.

That is a philosophy that has worked but just barely. Today, while the rhetoric has toned down, a nuclear holocaust is as potent and real a threat as it ever was in anytime in our history.

I think we are coming to the same conclusion. Nuclear weapons as they are are not all that effective in state-on-state conflict. All the same I will grant your point. The intent of the Maxim machinegun was to make war too horrifying to be engaged in lightly and then we got WWI. So, perhaps someone will form a tactic in which nuclear weapons play a major role. As it is, I do not see that as being feasible at this time. Eventually, perhaps. I think war is decentralizing and nuclear weapons are just too cost prohibitive to be used by non-state actors. I could certainly see a bomb being used in a terrorist attack, but probably no more than a couple. Certainly not enough to destroy an ecosystem to the point of causing systemic collapse.

Quote

Quote

Diseases really aren't that terrifying. Viruses and bacteria may evolve but so do people. The idea that a single virus could wipe out mankind entirely is somewhat ridiculous. I think that a monstrously large epidemic could easily wipe out civilization but not homo sapiens at large. A number of people would have or develop immunities and they would do what people do naturally - be fruitful and multiply.

Been to a tropical country before? Disease is indeed the largest killer of humans today, but it isn't vindictive or personal, just tragic. Diseases cause atrocious human suffering at every level, how exactly is that NOT terrifying? Every 15 seconds a child dies from water borne diseases. Every 15 minutes a person dies from AIDS. 1 MILLION people a year die from malaria. Staggering but not a holocaust, the only reason I put nuclear war above diseases on human threat list is because diseases are again part of a natural balance, whereas nuclear war is a human creation, and we all know human beings make terrible decisions

You point out exactly why I don't consider diseases to be that great of a threat. "Been to a tropical country before?" Nope. I've also never had malaria before. People live in every single ecosystem imaginable. Tropical diseases tend to be just that - tropical, and thus are localized. Look at how small pox affected the New World. It killed most of them, but not all of them. In addition it did not kill the European conquistadores because they had developed immunities to these diseases. I don't think any disease will wipe up out as a species, just as I don't think that nuclear weapons will destroy ALL of humanity.[/quote]

Quote

Quote

I think the greatest political threat would be if Islam just went totally bonkers and jihaded everyone at once. Since Islam isn't a state it doesn't have the same restrictions as a state would.

As our technological capabilities continue to increase, I fear that we may fall into the temptation of playing God with our own genes. That is, altering our humanity in an embryonic state. Imagine class divisions on unprecedented scales. Not via wealth, race, nationality, but predetermined conditions and artificially managed genes. Such a dystopic future does not even require a Brave New World-esque totalitarian regime. Effectively, some people will be able to afford to have their children genetically engineered for biological perfection (supreme intelligence, strength, stamina, etc.), while the rest of society will be operating on human 1.0. The following generation's divisions will be only more severe as the genetically engineered humans will completely and totally dominate the elite strata of society.

As "sci-fi-sh" as it may sound, it seems to be a possibility given rapid technological advancement. The worst part is that it doesn't destroy life, but alters it in nightmarish ways. It divides the human race into multiple species.

« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 07:04:33 PM by Ioannis Climacus »

Logged

Note : Many of my posts (especially the ones antedating late 2012) do not reflect charity, tact, or even views I presently hold. Please forgive me for any antagonism I have caused.

Come on now how about self replicating nano bots or at least some kind of robot that manufactures itself. I never gave much thought to the partial accelerator thing before but I guess if they turn it on and are like oops, it will be highly likely the Lord will have to flood the universe with his uncreated enegies, ya know lake of fire

Are you sure? It seems like moral relativism might actually solve many of our problems. Most wars and conflicts are started precisely because of moral objectivism, leading each side to believe that they are correct and that the other is wrong, causing them to fight.

Come on now how about self replicating nano bots or at least some kind of robot that manufactures itself. I never gave much thought to the partial accelerator thing before but I guess if they turn it on and are like oops, it will be highly likely the Lord will have to flood the universe with his uncreated enegies, ya know lake of fire

Is the Partial Accelerator the lazy version of the Large Hadron Collider?

Are you sure? It seems like moral relativism might actually solve many of our problems. Most wars and conflicts are started precisely because of moral objectivism, leading each side to believe that they are correct and that the other is wrong, causing them to fight.

No, I post that just to waste bandwidth...

OF COURSE I'm sure. Your logic is faulty.

Logged

"Religion is a neurobiological illness and Orthodoxy is its cure." - Fr. John S. Romanides

Islam? I admit, Islam is a parasitic religion that is infecting the entire world, but I do not think that it is capable of completely destroying humanity if all of its adherents went bonkers and declared jihad. Hell, the Roman Catholic Church has like 2 billion adherents worldwide. If Islam went bonkers, then all the Pope has to do is call for a universal crusade and we would have 2 billion people from all over the world ready to exterminate Islam. Then our threat would be Latinization lol.

Come on now how about self replicating nano bots or at least some kind of robot that manufactures itself. I never gave much thought to the partial accelerator thing before but I guess if they turn it on and are like oops, it will be highly likely the Lord will have to flood the universe with his uncreated enegies, ya know lake of fire

Is the Partial Accelerator the lazy version of the Large Hadron Collider?

Yea any type of machine that smashes things together at high speeds I group under particle accelerator, This would also include those things where the 4 balls hit each other and the 2 end ones fly out that you see on desks in studies and offices

Too much methane being released by livestock, thereby leading to a change in the composition of our atmosphere and humans asphyxiating.

Logged

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

Come on now how about self replicating nano bots or at least some kind of robot that manufactures itself. I never gave much thought to the partial accelerator thing before but I guess if they turn it on and are like oops, it will be highly likely the Lord will have to flood the universe with his uncreated enegies, ya know lake of fire

Is the Partial Accelerator the lazy version of the Large Hadron Collider?

stay blessed,habte selassie

« Last Edit: October 25, 2012, 08:44:17 PM by HabteSelassie »

Logged

"Yet stand aloof from stupid questionings and geneologies and strifes and fightings about law, for they are without benefit and vain." Titus 3:10

Islam? I admit, Islam is a parasitic religion that is infecting the entire world, but I do not think that it is capable of completely destroying humanity if all of its adherents went bonkers and declared jihad. Hell, the Roman Catholic Church has like 2 billion adherents worldwide. If Islam went bonkers, then all the Pope has to do is call for a universal crusade and we would have 2 billion people from all over the world ready to exterminate Islam. Then our threat would be Latinization lol.

He can't even convince Catholics to stop using birth control, you think he can get them to fight a war?

"as [you've] informed us that respect chills love, it is natural to conclude that all your pretty flights arise from your pampered sensibility; and that, vain of this fancied preeminence of organs, you foster every emotion till the fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason. It is not in this view surprising that when you should argue you become impassioned, and that reflection inflames your imagination instead of enlightening your understanding." - Mary Wollstonecraft

Materialism and the redefinition of secularism as state-enforceable thought crime laws to be selectively used against anyone who won't go along with

These wouldn't necessarily be threats on their own, but of course nothing in today's globalized world is really separate from anything else. But it is these twin forces that are rapidly reshaping at least Western society (where I live; in other places it's probably like "lack of clean water") into something that is hospitable to everyone and everything that can be recast as a "human right", while simultaneously doing grave damage to both what it has traditionally meant to be 'human' and to have 'rights'. Basically:

"Whether it’s the guillotine, the hangman’s noose, or reciprocal endeavors of militaristic horror, radical evil will never be recompensed with radical punishment. The only answer, the only remedy, and the only truly effective response to radical evil is radical love."+ Gebre Menfes Kidus +http://bookstore.authorhouse.com/Products/SKU-000984270/Rebel-Song.aspx

If we're talking about physical existence, a large undiscovered meteor colliding with earth could be a problem. Then there's the less likely stuff: false vacuum, nearby gamma ray burst, etc. You can't spend life worrying about such things, though it would be unfortunate to have it happen.

Nuclear war could be an issue if a madman with no regard for mutually assured destruction controls an arsenal. Biological warfare is a more terrifying alternative, I personally think.

I think simple absence of love for our fellow man is the most likely. I read about a family whose house was foreclosed, and while trying to give out their excess possessions, the house was utterly ransacked by human cockroaches. Right in front of them. Shocking.

"Hearts growing cold" as the Bible says. Any man made disaster comes back to this.

Nuclear weapons as they are are not all that effective in state-on-state conflict.

There are a bunch of Japanese people who would like to argue with you.

If they hadn't blown all their nuclear physicists to kingdom come perhaps it is us who would be disagreeing with the alternate universe vamrat-san. But alas...

Or if the blockheads hadn't been gassing their Jews perhaps they'd have had Einstein and we'd be disagreeing with Herr Sturmbannfuhrer Vamrat.

As it is, they tried using bayonets vs fat man and little boy.

stay blessed,habte selassie

Since you chose to use a look of derision rather than state a counterpoint I have to assume that you are unaware that the Germans and Japanese did naughty things in WWII, not just the US. I understand that we had a hobby of cooking civilians alive with various sorts of bombs, but you should look up The Rape of Nanking and German actions against Partisans on both fronts.

The current biggest threat to humanity is global governance. In any previous empires or kingdoms you could at least try to escape somewhere the local dictator did not have influence on.

A global state - which is just a matter of technology and logistics - has nowhere to escape, not until extraterrestrial colonies are fully independent.

Authoritarian regimes always commit mass murder with their own civilians. A global regime will certainly do that.

Logged

Many Energies, 3 Persons, 2 Natures, 1 God, 1 Church, 1 Baptism, and 1 Cup. The Son begotten only from the Father, the Spirit proceeding only from the Father, Each glorifying the Other. The Son sends the Spirit, the Spirit Reveals the Son, the Father is seen in the Son. The Spirit spoke through the Prophets and Fathers and does so even today.

Nuclear war is not that big of a threat since nuclear weapons typically bring peace through mutually assured destruction. Finding a way to make nukes easier to use without any fallout (heh) would be disastrous at best.

Diseases really aren't that terrifying. Viruses and bacteria may evolve but so do people. The idea that a single virus could wipe out mankind entirely is somewhat ridiculous. I think that a monstrously large epidemic could easily wipe out civilization but not homo sapiens at large. A number of people would have or develop immunities and they would do what people do naturally - be fruitful and multiply.

I think the greatest political threat would be if Islam just went totally bonkers and jihaded everyone at once. Since Islam isn't a state it doesn't have the same restrictions as a state would. Religions, just like ideologies, are organic and can operate across a wide spectrum. Islam just has that perfect mix of universalism, condoned violence, and a central location between several major civilizational centers. I don't think the Sinification of world politics will really be disastrous, I just think it will be a slow development over the next century that people will grow used to. Or their growth spurt will end and they will slide back into anonymity. We'll see. The eventual collapse/evolution of the United States might provoke some violence but probably not enough to be really devastating. I just think our economy will normalize to the standard for this hemisphere while our language and culture atrophy until the point that Latin culture fills the vacuum.

Other than that, there's always the possibility that Barrack Hussein Obama is in fact a space alien and uses the next four years to await his Alpha Centaurian reinforcements.

I would just note that mutually assured destruction requires that both 'sides' possessing such weapons are run by men and women who are sane - they may disagree, even to the brink or beyond of conventional war, but in the end they are sane. I recall reading somewhere that Kennedy, during the Cuban crisis fifty years ago, told his more militant advisers that in the end he believed that Kruschev wanted to wake up in the morning, check his garden and see his grandchildren and that for that reason Kennedy would trust that the crisis would be solved and we would not pursue a preemptive strike.

I am not as sanguine about failed states like Pakistan and the types of men (note I omitted women in this equation) who might put their hopes in another type of 'morning.' To my mind, that is the real challenge of the next one hundred years.

And I did catch a story this past week about NASA discovering a planet around Alpha Centauri - except that it circled the star daily and had a surface temperature hotter than Mercury. Oh well....

I also agree with Vamrat to the point that wars are by nature messy endeavors and if the cause is just, tactics needed to advance the greater strategic goals are often unpleasant to say the least. I am neither a militarist nor a pacifist but I would challenge any pacifist to posit how the world would have been a better place had the Germans and the Japanese prevailed in the second world war?